Return-Path: X-Spam-DCC: paranoid 1102; Body=2 Fuz1=2 Fuz2=2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on lipkowski.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL, HTML_MESSAGE,RATWARE_GECKO_BUILD autolearn=no version=3.1.3 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by paranoid.lipkowski.org (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id tA1DkuOW014225 for ; Sun, 1 Nov 2015 14:46:56 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Zssuk-0001xh-LX for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 01 Nov 2015 13:43:18 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Zssuk-0001xY-8W for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 01 Nov 2015 13:43:18 +0000 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1Zsstg-0005ae-32 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 01 Nov 2015 13:43:17 +0000 Received: from dovecot03.posteo.de (dovecot03.posteo.de [172.16.0.13]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A819620849 for ; Sun, 1 Nov 2015 14:41:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.posteo.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dovecot03.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3npdpC0wb8z5vNC for ; Sun, 1 Nov 2015 14:41:54 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <563616A2.5010102@posteo.de> Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2015 14:41:54 +0100 From: DK7FC User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <1a8427.6a713177.43669029@aol.com> <5635383B.8080403@posteo.de> <56353DB4.8010007@posteo.de> <56354AA6.1020702@posteo.de> <215F3F7B3BD74CAD81A322B601746534@PCFausto> In-Reply-To: <215F3F7B3BD74CAD81A322B601746534@PCFausto> X-Scan-Signature: fa743f59d022704fe4104ed922c6083c Subject: Re: LF: Re: FR5ZX on MF WSPR Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010407060603090006010404" X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 10.1.3.10 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4753 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------010407060603090006010404 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Fausto, Normal CW would have been possible last night! There were 90 decodes by FR5ZX last night. The best reports from last night are: Timestamp Call MHz SNR Drift Grid Pwr Reporter RGrid km az 2015-10-31 22:30 PA0A 0.475725 -20 0 JO33de 2 FR5ZX LG78pu 9511 135 2015-10-31 23:46 DK7FC 0.475684 -12 0 JN49ik 1 FR5ZX LG78pu 9095 137 2015-11-01 00:12 DF6NM 0.475785 -20 0 JN59nj 1 FR5ZX LG78pu 8974 139 2015-10-31 23:58 DJ0ABR 0.475665 -25 0 JN68nt 0.2 FR5ZX LG78pu 8830 140 2015-10-31 23:42 DH5RAE 0.475753 -27 0 JN68qv 0.5 FR5ZX LG78pu 8826 141 2015-10-31 23:12 IZ7SLZ 0.475777 -27 0 JN80nu 0.01 FR5ZX LG78pu 7941 143 You know, a few weeks back i've tested the readability of a signal at -6 dB and -16 dB. -6 dB was fine for a normal speed (100 Bpm) CW QSO. -16 dB was barely audible, not fine for a QSO, maybe a call can be copied when repeated a few times. So i think that -12 dB should be fine for a QSO at 60 Bpm and some concentration... But it was just a short moment within 4 hours. Not sure if someone want to call CQ for such a long time to make a "599tu" QSO then :-) 73, Stefan PS: Could someone provide more statistical overview of last nights results? Am 01.11.2015 12:09, schrieb Fausto Coletti: > Hi Stefan, > -14 dB !!! > Virtually with 10 dB extra power you would get an audible CW > signal...at 9000 Km WOW. > 73, Fausto IK4NMF > --------------010407060603090006010404 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Fausto,

Normal CW would have been possible last night! There were 90 decodes by FR5ZX last night. The best reports from last night are:

Timestamp Call MHz SNR Drift Grid Pwr Reporter RGrid km az
 2015-10-31 22:30   PA0A   0.475725   -20   0   JO33de   2   FR5ZX   LG78pu   9511   135 
 2015-10-31 23:46   DK7FC   0.475684   -12   0   JN49ik   1   FR5ZX   LG78pu   9095   137 
 2015-11-01 00:12   DF6NM   0.475785   -20   0   JN59nj   1   FR5ZX   LG78pu   8974   139 
 2015-10-31 23:58   DJ0ABR   0.475665   -25   0   JN68nt   0.2   FR5ZX   LG78pu   8830   140 
 2015-10-31 23:42   DH5RAE   0.475753   -27   0   JN68qv   0.5   FR5ZX   LG78pu   8826   141 
 2015-10-31 23:12   IZ7SLZ   0.475777   -27   0   JN80nu   0.01   FR5ZX   LG78pu   7941   143 

You know, a few weeks back i've tested the readability of a signal at -6 dB and -16 dB. -6 dB was fine for a normal speed (100 Bpm) CW QSO. -16 dB was barely audible, not fine for a QSO, maybe a call can be copied when repeated a few times. So i think that -12 dB should be fine for a QSO at 60 Bpm and some concentration... But it was just a short moment within 4 hours. Not sure if someone want to call CQ for such a long time to make a "599tu" QSO then :-)

73, Stefan

PS: Could someone provide more statistical overview of last nights results?



Am 01.11.2015 12:09, schrieb Fausto Coletti:
Hi Stefan,
 
-14 dB !!!
Virtually with 10 dB extra power you would get an audible CW signal...at 9000 Km WOW.
 
 
73, Fausto IK4NMF

--------------010407060603090006010404--